On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 4:57:36 AM UTC-8, wrote:
With all respect to the many insitefull comments posted here, and acknowledging the loss of any loved one is always a tragedy, developing layer upon endless layer of rules will never end the fact that there will always be fatalities in this and every "racing" sport.

Human nature is not going to change, irregardless of legislation. Guys will push to the edge and over whatever "safety" regulation is set. Safety has only been improved in other motor based sports due to new and improved safer structures and engineering, not in new rules.

As for trying to set a hard floor for tasks, I agree with others who have commented here, what a ridiculous concept, put forth by those who have no concept of what it takes to fly ridges! As for low thermalling, whats low for a js1 is not low for a 1-26. What is low for a guy in a new-to-him ship is not low for a guy with 1,000 hours in a certain model. What is low for a guy right over a big landable field with little wind is not the same for a guy over trees in gusty wx. I absolutely can't stand when people attempt to mandate THEIR standards upon others, while missing the point that it is Decision making skills that create or obviate safety. You pick your standards and you live or die by them. I pick my standards and I live or die by them. We ALL live or die by the flight decisions we make irregardless of FAR's or contest rules.

As for GP style racing having an abhorrent safety record or not, that doesn't matter. If you don't like that style of racing, don't participate. But since your not directly involved in that form of racing, don't try to mandate your opinion of what the rules should be on those that participate and enjoy that series. I myself will never have the oportunity to participate in one, but I sure enjoy the GP concept and admire the skills that Kawa and others demonstrate. As for the accident rate being a "black eye" on the public image of soaring, are you kidding? No one cares because no one even knows what we do! We are a miniscule minority within aviation, and not even on the radar! We still are thought to land out cause the "wind quit"!

There is a dichotomy he lack of participation vs. personal responsibility for risk. Everyone is hand wringing about the nanny state and too many rules, and also the decline of participation: but the reason most often expressed for not wanting to race is "it's too risky". The fact is that racing rewards risk. Some of this is always going to be necessary. But flying low over unlandable terrain is not one of those. It does not measure skill, only luck. The hard deck I envision would not prevent flying next to or over ridges, this is still a judgement call. It would discourage you from getting very low in unlandable valleys. Those who say a hard deck won't work in the mountains haven't thought about it enough. Certainly where I fly, whole competitions can be flown within easy gliding range not just from a landing site, but from real airports. On decent days, the hard deck involved would not even come into play. On bad days it might, and one wonders if perhaps those days are unsafe days to hold competitions. I know a number of pilots who might enter such a competition, who will not otherwise.

Why not run the Olympics with no drug tests? After all, the damage done is simply a matter of personal risk tolerance? The reason is, any competition attempts to create a flat playing field, where the skill being measured makes the difference between winning and loosing. When personal risk tolerance is added as a major factor, we are not testing soaring skill anymore. You can still go out on a non contest day and get as low as you like wherever you like, if that's what turns your prop. In a soaring competition, it is soaring skill we are supposed to be measuring, not risk tolerance.